Post-disaster management has become a cause for concern in Indonesia following the 2004 earthquake and tsunami that struck Aceh and Nias. On the sidelines of the International Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Disaster Mitigation last week, Teddy Boen, a senior advisor for the World Seismic Safety Initiative, talked to The Jakarta Post's Dian Kuswandini about some flaws in disaster management.Question: In terms of disaster management, why do you think the government should focus more on recovery and rehabilitation instead of prevention and mitigation? Answer: It is because the government is still applying the old theory of disaster management, in which actions are put into stages. In this case, emergency response and rehabilitation are the first two things to do after a disaster occurs, while mitigation is the last thing to consider. The new theory of disaster management does not recognize this kind of staging. Actions are carried out as simultaneously as possible after a disaster strikes. What are the main problems with reconstruction activities in disaster-hit areas? One of them is the poor quality of reconstructed houses, for example in Aceh and Nias. Low quality of materials and workmanship were used with no seismic retrofitting design, meaning those houses are vulnerable to earthquakes. This could be a disaster if the Sumatra fault or the plate boundary breaks. The Simeulue earthquake in February confirmed this when new houses collapsed. This is because the government has not issued minimum building standards for the retrofitting of simple houses. Furthermore, the Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Agency for Aceh and Nias (BRR) has the mindset of quantity before quality. Like in December last year, BRR claimed in a press release the reconstruction of houses in Aceh and Nias was the fastest in the world compared to the reconstruction in Bam (Iran), Gujarat (India) and Turkey. They said, they repaired a house in the time the Gujratis repaired a window. This is very misleading because the houses built in those countries are more accurate in assessment. Why do you think the government and the BBR do not impose specific standards for the retrofitting of simple houses in Aceh? Because the BRR appreciated the generosity of the donors and NGOs who were willing to build so many houses for the Acehenese people. So they thought it was inappropriate to impose mandatory procedures on them. To maintain cordial relationship with the donors, the BBR was reluctant to enforce the approval and permit system, as well as the quality audit. Even though the government had already built new houses for the quake victims, why did most of them refuse to move to the new houses? In that case, it was not only about relocating people to a new place, but also relocating their livelihood. Those people live in communities and they have emotional and cultural bonds with their environment. Some communities were relocated from their former villages and were thus uprooted from their livelihood. Furthermore, due to lack of planning, many houses were built far away from public facilities, like markets, schools and mosques, so some community members refused to move. What do you think about the coordination between the government and local governments in handling these situations? It is not about the coordination between them, but the way they manage disasters. The government promised a lot of things. In Aceh, the people received payments for living costs for three years. This has made them pessimistic and over-demanding in terms of assistance. Of course the government must help them, but it did not have to promise so much. It is the government's duty to help its citizens, but the people do not have absolute rights to government aid because the government did not cause the disaster.

How could scholars and engineers help promote earthquake safety matters? Currently, the subject of non-engineered buildings, or simple houses, has not been taught at universities, and building construction in general has not been taught thoroughly. So, I think non-engineered building must be introduced in the earthquake engineering syllabus and building construction must be refreshed. The competence of engineers and architects, entrusted with design and supervision of earthquake resistant houses, should also be assessed and improved. I also suggest professionals work closely with universities to develop courses of study for engineering and architectural students related to effects of earthquakes on simple houses. It is also essential to make available the information on earthquake-resistant building designs to engineering and architectural students. This can be done by holding seminars, workshops, special lectures and formal courses.